Clay Court GOAT

I've already listed Vines record. 3 amateur majors, 5 professional majors, best player in the world as a pro from 1934-1938

Click to expand...

None of those are best ever statistics, or anything that makes you the potential GOAT. Many have won alot more amateur majors, alot more pro majors, been the best amateur or pro in the World for longer. Nobody is disputing Vines is a great player (and nobody other than kiki disputes he was much better than Kodes) but he is not a GOAT candidate.

Anyway was he really the best pro in 1937 and 1938. He didnt win ANY of the pro slams, and Hans Nusslein (a great pro player but hardly a historic figure) won 2 of the 3 both years. In 6 years as a pro he won a total of 5 pro majors, less than 1 per years, hardly unwordly dominance (Hans Nusslein won the same number), especialy when he didnt face stars who werent significantly older than him like Perry and Budge until the final years. He took over as the top amateur player for a couple years from men a decade older than him, was overtaken by Crawford, then after losing #1 turned pro and again was on top for a few years vs a bunch of men much older than him, being overtaken again when guys his own age or younger also turned pro.

Also who is rated as best of the 30s. It is always Budge, almost nobody picks Vines as even the best of his own decade.

and his best game was still seen as unbeatable even after Budge overtook him in 1939.

Click to expand...

This argument and its meaning is ridiculous. Mary Pierce's best game might have been seen as unbeatable by anyone from 1994-1999, but that doesnt give her unofficial best player of the 90s status. I suppose you will say his best game was unbeatable too in 1933 when others overtook him, he just never brought it, just like in 1939 Budge was better but it means nothing since Vines didnt bring his best game supposably.

He's clearly in the GOAT discussion.

Click to expand...

Only in your eyes. Just settle for him being better than Kodes.

You still havent addressed your numerous other non GOAT candidates you listed as GOAT candidates. You dont seem to differentiate between being an all time great and being a GOAT candidate. If there is NOTHING that your career is the best over everyone else is, you arent a GOAT candidate. Which is the case not only with Vines, but King, Seles, Serena, Perry, and many others you listed.

A couple of stats for greatness and I suppose for GOAThood for Connors and Lendl. Both won over 140 tournaments (Connors 148 and Lendl 146 I believe). This is a record for the Open Era. Both had many years of dominance in which they won over 90% of their matches. They both had five year periods in which they averaged winning 90% of their matches. This is super tough when you consider Sampras and Agassi has never done it.

Click to expand...

Does Lendl have any records that are his own now though. He lost his slam finals record to Federer. Connors holds the slam semifinals and most tournament wins record over him. Federer has had both a 3 year streak a 5 year streak much better than Lendl's.

Does Lendl have any records that are his own now though. He lost his slam finals record to Federer. Connors holds the slam semifinals and most tournament wins record over him. Federer has had both a 3 year streak a 5 year streak much better than Lendl's.

None of those are best ever statistics, or anything that makes you the potential GOAT. Many have won alot more amateur majors, alot more pro majors, been the best amateur or pro in the World for longer. Nobody is disputing Vines is a great player (and nobody other than kiki disputes he was much better than Kodes) but he is not a GOAT candidate.

Anyway was he really the best pro in 1937 and 1938. He didnt win ANY of the pro slams, and Hans Nusslein (a great pro player but hardly a historic figure) won 2 of the 3 both years. In 6 years as a pro he won a total of 5 pro majors, less than 1 per years, hardly unwordly dominance (Hans Nusslein won the same number), especialy when he didnt face stars who werent significantly older than him like Perry and Budge until the final years. He took over as the top amateur player for a couple years from men a decade older than him, was overtaken by Crawford, then after losing #1 turned pro and again was on top for a few years vs a bunch of men much older than him, being overtaken again when guys his own age or younger also turned pro.

Also who is rated as best of the 30s. It is always Budge, almost nobody picks Vines as even the best of his own decade.

This argument and its meaning is ridiculous. Mary Pierce's best game might have been seen as unbeatable by anyone from 1994-1999, but that doesnt give her unofficial best player of the 90s status. I suppose you will say his best game was unbeatable too in 1933 when others overtook him, he just never brought it, just like in 1939 Budge was better but it means nothing since Vines didnt bring his best game supposably.

Only in your eyes. Just settle for him being better than Kodes.

You still havent addressed your numerous other non GOAT candidates you listed as GOAT candidates. You dont seem to differentiate between being an all time great and being a GOAT candidate. If there is NOTHING that your career is the best over everyone else is, you arent a GOAT candidate. Which is the case not only with Vines, but King, Seles, Serena, Perry, and many others you listed.

Click to expand...

Vines is clearly better than Kodes by a wide margin. As far as GOAT candidate is concerned with him, that's a really tough question. Vines's record is fantastic and as you wrote, Budge is generally considered the best player of the 1930's but that could be wrong. Think about it, what's the main reason Budge is ranked number one for the 1930's? Obviously his Grand Slam in 1938 but who was it against? Really very few players of note and just about all the best players with the notable exception of von Cramm were in the pros. If it was truly Open Tennis the odds of Budge winning a Grand Slam was pretty low with Vines, Nusslein, Perry, von Cramm (if Germany let him play), Tilden, Cochet playing. Vines won majors at a very young age, turned pro and went on to be the best player in the pros. His tournament record in the pros was excellents and he arguably was the best player in the world for many years. To be honest I'm not sure Budge was the best player of the 1930's over Vines.

Objectively I don't think Vines is a GOAT but sometimes we do have to look at subjective opinions. Many experts and former greats like Budge and Kramer have thought Vines could very well be the greatest. Kramer thinks Budge is the best but he doesn't rule out Vines as possibly being greater than Budge.

Do I think Vines is a GOAT candidate? A very weak candidate but yes I do. I have been examining his record and it truly is terrific.

I agree, just not a real candidate for THE GOAT. Most of this crazy fanatical forum thinks Federer is the only candidate which is totally wrong of course, but there arent 20 of them either (and there sure as heck are not 10 women which is what Mustard listed including people like King, Seles, and Serena).

I agree, just not a real candidate for THE GOAT. Most of this crazy fanatical forum thinks Federer is the only candidate which is totally wrong of course, but there arent 20 of them either (and there sure as heck are not 10 women which is what Mustard listed including people like King, Seles, and Serena).

Click to expand...

The requirements for GOAT should be very tough obviously. What I never can understand is why so many assume the GOAT is always playing in the present? I also assumed in any sport the GOAT is probably not playing in the present simply because the history of most sports are so long with so many players that statistically the odds are the GOAT played in the past. I've looked at the stats for many individuals in different sports and I've generally found that to be the case.

Anyway was he really the best pro in 1937 and 1938. He didnt win ANY of the pro slams, and Hans Nusslein (a great pro player but hardly a historic figure) won 2 of the 3 both years.

Click to expand...

Vines didn't play any pro majors in 1937 and 1938. He just focused on winning the pro tours instead. He entered the French Pro just twice, winning it in 1935 and runner-up in 1939. He entered the Wembley Pro 4 times, winning 3 of them in a row (1934-1936), and he only entered the US Pro twice, winning it in 1939 and losing a semi final to Nusslein in 1934. So, Vines competed in 8 professional majors and won 5 of them, and 2 of the 3 that he didn't win were in 1939.

Also who is rated as best of the 30s. It is always Budge, almost nobody picks Vines as even the best of his own decade.

Click to expand...

I think I have Vines ahead of Budge for the 1930s, because Budge came to prominence in the late 1930s, whereas Vines had the whole decade. The war years would have been Budge's peak, in my opinion. By the time the war was over, Budge was slightly past his prime and Riggs was the best in the world before Kramer turned professional in late 1947.

Of course, the real reason for Budge being put ahead of Vines in the 1930s on many people's list is his CYGS in 1938. They don't delve any deeper. Even Budge confirming in 1939 that he was the best player in the world by becoming the best professional, is unlikely to have registered on their radar. Budge is considered the best player in the world in 1938 because of the CYGS, but was he really better than Vines and Nusslein that year? Perry, and even Tilden, were still forces to be reckoned with in 1938 as well.

Vines didn't play any pro majors in 1937 and 1938. He just focused on winning the pro tours instead. He entered the French Pro just twice, winning it in 1935 and runner-up in 1939. He entered the Wembley Pro 4 times, winning 3 of them in a row (1934-1936), and he only entered the US Pro twice, winning it in 1939 and losing a semi final to Nusslein in 1934. So, Vines competed in 8 professional majors and won 5 of them, and 2 of the 3 that he didn't win were in 1939.

I think I have Vines ahead of Budge for the 1930s, because Budge came to prominence in the late 1930s, whereas Vines had the whole decade. The war years would have been Budge's peak, in my opinion. By the time the war was over, Budge was slightly past his prime and Riggs was the best in the world before Kramer turned professional in late 1947.

Of course, the real reason for Budge being put ahead of Vines in the 1930s on many people's list is his CYGS in 1938. They don't delve any deeper. Even Budge confirming in 1939 that he was the best player in the world by becoming the best professional, is unlikely to have registered on their radar. Budge is considered the best player in the world in 1938 because of the CYGS, but was he really better than Vines and Nusslein that year? Perry, and even Tilden, were still forces to be reckoned with in 1938 as well.

Click to expand...

And you have to considered that they first tour was very close between Budge and Vines. It's possible that Vines may have played the first tour injured, at least for part of it. We know that Vines was hurt and was serving underhanded in some of the matches. I'm not sure if it was in the first tour or the second or both.

And Budge said that once he was regularly playing against Vines, Perry's game didn't really bother him anymore. Some people seem to be pleading with me to drop names from my GOAT list, but the reason I had Perry in there was because he was the first male player to win all 4 amateur majors in his career, having prevented Crawford from completing the CYGS in 1933.

Speaking of Crawford, was 1933 the only year he played in the US Championships? He seemed to play in the other 3 majors regularly.

And Budge said that once he was regularly playing against Vines, Perry's game didn't really bother him anymore. Some people seem to be pleading with me to drop names from my GOAT list, but the reason I had Perry in there was because he was the first male player to win all 4 amateur majors in his career, having prevented Crawford from completing the CYGS in 1933.

Speaking of Crawford, was 1933 the only year he played in the US Championships? He seemed to play in the other 3 majors regularly.

Click to expand...

Perry had some injuries in the pros and he may have not had the interest in the game anymore even if he was the best pro in 1941.

Then among men:
Sampras- his Wimbledon and 6 straight year end #1 records.
Federer- his most slams record.
Laver- his 2 Calendar Slams.
Rosewall- his unmatched longevity at the top of the game, 20 years worth.
Gonzales- being the dominant player almost an entire decade, and like Rosewall excelling into his 40s.
Borg- his unmatched parallel dominance of grass and clay.

I think so. You can make a good argument that Tilden was the most dominant of them all. It's very possible that if airplane travel was the same as it is today that Tilden would have won several Grand Slams given how almost unbeatable he was in the 1920's. And he was still beating players like Budge and Perry into the 1940's.

That list shows conclusively that if Vines had any serious shoulder issues preventing him from serving effectively, and forcing him to serve sidearm, such a physical issue must have been brief. There are simply too many dates documented on which he was serving aces and therefore must have been serving over-arm (for lack of a better term).

And if we're talking about something brief, then by definition it is not serious. It's on the level of many such physical problems that all the players on these tours faced at one point or another, for brief periods (such as illnesses, or blisters, or muscle strains, etc.)

All we have is a claim, I take it, that was made many years later. I don't think it's a question of honesty but there are instances in which people incorporate into their memory events that did not actually happen; or their recollection of when actual events occurred, and what persons were involved, is faulty. Those instances are not that uncommon.

What I object to primarily is this, if you say that Vines was serving underarm during some of the matches, it gives the impression that he was dealing with a debilitating injury during these tours; and the vague reference to "some matches" can be taken by some readers to mean that he served underarm occasionally, throughout the tour; or that he served underarm during some period of time, which for some people can mean quite a significant period of time. 10 or 20 matches can count as "some matches" in a series of 40 matches. And it's just not true that Vines was crippled for 10 or 20 matches. At most he had a brief injury. That should be specified.

I agree, and Lenglen and Wills perhaps for the women (although not as sure on them as womens tennis wasnt really competitive yet then, whereas mens was already quite competitive in the Tilden and even Renshaw days).

I could see a list of roughly 8 men as the possible GOAT but women is only the super 4 of Graf, Navratilova, Court, and Evert.

That list shows conclusively that if Vines had any serious shoulder issues preventing him from serving effectively, and forcing him to serve sidearm, such a physical issue must have been brief. There are simply too many dates documented on which he was serving aces and therefore must have been serving over-arm (for lack of a better term).

And if we're talking about something brief, then by definition it is not serious. It's on the level of many such physical problems that all the players on these tours faced at one point or another, for brief periods (such as illnesses, or blisters, or muscle strains, etc.)

All we have is a claim, I take it, that was made many years later. I don't think it's a question of honesty but there are instances in which people incorporate into their memory events that did not actually happen; or their recollection of when actual events occurred, and what persons were involved, is faulty. Those instances are not that uncommon.

What I object to primarily is this, if you say that Vines was serving underarm during some of the matches, it gives the impression that he was dealing with a debilitating injury during these tours; and the vague reference to "some matches" can be taken by some readers to mean that he served underarm occasionally, throughout the tour; or that he served underarm during some period of time, which for some people can mean quite a significant period of time. 10 or 20 matches can count as "some matches" in a series of 40 matches. And it's just not true that Vines was crippled for 10 or 20 matches. At most he had a brief injury. That should be specified.

Vines competition was never even half as deep as Kodes.I am not disputing Vines was a more talented player than Kodes, in fact, Kodes was not specially talented.Just that he is underrated because he is a czech...and such a clown like Rios is so much talked...so much for seriousness in TT¡¡¡

Vines competition was never even half as deep as Kodes.I am not disputing Vines was a more talented player than Kodes, in fact, Kodes was not specially talented.Just that he is underrated because he is a czech...and such a clown like Rios is so much talked...so much for seriousness in TT¡¡¡

Click to expand...

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

Click to expand...

Tilden and Cochet past their peak, Budge and Perry ( and Crawford) , YES, great all time champions, but the rest is unknown.Kodes played Laver,Rosewall,Nastase,Borg,Connors...and guys like Vilas,Ashe,Smith,Orantes who are certainly way better than the second stringers Vines faced.

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

Click to expand...

A little piece in the Baltimore Sun, during the first Budge-Vines tour:

"[Vines] is four years older than Budge and has campaigned around the indoor paid circuit every year since he defeated Bill Tilden in their first venture. Hans Nusslein, Lester Stoefen, Henri Cochet, Martin Plaa, Robert Ramillon, Fred Perry, Bruce Barnes, Vincent Richards and Berkeley Bell all fell victim to him by varying margins. His grand total is 240 victories against 108 defeats prior to the current jaunt."

A little piece in the Baltimore Sun, during the first Budge-Vines tour:

"[Vines] is four years older than Budge and has campaigned around the indoor paid circuit every year since he defeated Bill Tilden in their first venture. Hans Nusslein, Lester Stoefen, Henri Cochet, Martin Plaa, Robert Hamilton, Fred Perry, Bruce Barnes, Vincent Richards and Berkeley Bell all fell victim to him by varying margins. His grand total is 240 victories against 108 defeats prior to the current jaunt."

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

Click to expand...

Vines very well could be better than Kodes on clay. He won the US Clay Courts and won the French Pro on clay. Both top tournaments.

I really don't understand why you continue to compare Vines and Kodes. Vines is arguably first tier all time great, to some the GOAT, to some others possible GOAT. There are very few in the history of tennis who can compare to Vines.

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

Kodes is not far from there...unless somebody comes up and tells me that Vines was ALSO BETTER than him on clay...

Click to expand...

Kodes is million light years away from being anywhere close to clay court GOAT ...

In the open era, nadal, borg, rosewall, lendl, kuerten,wilander, federer, bruguera, courier,muster, ferrero,laver,vilas,nastase,panatta are by some distance better than him on clay ...and that's just on top of my head ....

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

Click to expand...

He was an overachiever and that is meant as a compliment. He had far more heart and determination than talent. It is amazing he ended up with more slams than Nastase, and Nastase also benefited from chances in depleted slam fields during the strikes and various other nonense of the earlier 70s so cant even say it is due to that.

Vines very well could be better than Kodes on clay. He won the US Clay Courts and won the French Pro on clay. Both top tournaments.

I really don't understand why you continue to compare Vines and Kodes. Vines is arguably first tier all time great, to some the GOAT, to some others possible GOAT. There are very few in the history of tennis who can compare to Vines.

I've seen Kodes in his prime numerous times and while he was a very good player it never struck me at the time that he was an awesome player.

Click to expand...

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

Kodes is million light years away from being anywhere close to clay court GOAT ...

In the open era, nadal, borg, rosewall, lendl, kuerten,wilander, federer, bruguera, courier,muster, ferrero,laver,vilas,nastase,panatta are by some distance better than him on clay ...and that's just on top of my head ....

Click to expand...

Federer?? only won 1 RG to Kodes 2...same for Ferrero.Panatta,Vilas,Nastase also won 2 but at least they won the 2 nd best event (Rome) and dominated on clay so, yes, they were all on Kodes level ( if we talk about clay court, of course)

I never said Kodes could claim being cc goat, never.Lendl,Borg,Rosewall,Kuerten,Wilander,Nadal were well above him.If we mix, however, clay and other surfaces....things change and he advances some of your list...hey¡¡ Kodes won as many majors as your beloved Ellsworth

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

Click to expand...

clueless kiki once again doesn't get into his thick head that Vines also won many pro majors and was the top player for years whereas Kodes was well well below the top players of his time and was owned by almost every one of them - laver,rosewall, borg, connors, newk, nastase etc etc .....

oh and Kodes is the one of the luckiest slam winner in history - worst wimbledon in open era in 73, no Laver/Rosewall in either of his FO wins ( the 70 FO draw was real real weak ... ) ...and you are dumb enough to mention competition and Kodes in one sentence ?

Federer?? only won 1 RG to Kodes 2...same for Ferrero.Panatta,Vilas,Nastase also won 2 but at least they won the 2 nd best event (Rome) and dominated on clay so, yes, they were all on Kodes level ( if we talk about clay court, of course)

I never said Kodes could claim being cc goat, never.Lendl,Borg,Rosewall,Kuerten,Wilander,Nadal were well above him.If we mix, however, clay and other surfaces....things change and he advances some of your list...hey¡¡ Kodes won as many majors as your beloved Ellsworth

Click to expand...

both the RGs he won were weakened fields ....

give federer the same field and he cleans up the field on clay from 70-73 ( winning 3, possibly 4 RGs, only main threat being nastase in 73 )

federer has won 5 CC masters , been in so many finals at RG ( 5 )

vilas/panatta had to face borg, federer had to face nadal, ferrero had to face kuerten ..... whom did kodes have to face ? franulovic, still to peak nastase ? LOL !!!

I can´t understand having a guy with just 3 majors ( and a very weak opposition in 2 out of 3 finals) to be considered GOAT.Vines is a marketing product while Kodes was a real thing...

Click to expand...

He had eight majors including the pro majors, not three. won a lot of amateur and pro tournaments, won a number of tours over great players like Perry, Tilden. Had plus records over just about everyone (and perhaps some I'm not familiar with) but Budge and he played Budge close in the first tour. He never lost to Cochet in the pros or amateurs.

Kodes won two weak French Opens much the way Vilas won the Australian and he won a weak Wimbledon. Did anyone ever consider Vilas the best grass player in the world? I don't believe people in general thought Kodes was the best clay player in the world or the best grass player.

Vines was the best player in the world, not just the best grass or clay player. He was the best player in the world for years.

Vines wasn't a product of marketing. How much marketing could he have in the 1930's?

Kodes was lucky to be a good, steady player in depleted fields. Vines was a great player no matter who he was facing.

I have Vines at world no. 1 or co-number 1 for five years between 1931-37. The highest rank Kodes achieved was world no. 4.

Click to expand...

While I respect Kiki what disturbs me about the comparison is the one sidedness of the comparison. To compare Ellsworth Vines with Jan Kodes is like comparing Michael Jordan to Kiki Vandeweghe in NBA basketball. Jordan's an all time great while Kiki was a very good player.

In this way Vines is an all time great while Kodes is a better than average player. I can probably mentioned more than ten better clay court players than Kodes and probably more than thirty overall players better than Kodes.

With Vines some would argue none are ahead of him and many would argue just a few. Vines is consistently on top ten all time greats list in tennis. I have never seen Kodes on a top ten all time list in anything.

I would not be bothered with Kodes was compared to Michael Chang or JIm Courier but Vines, no way there is any sort of reasonably comparison.

No order but he would probably pick Vines first and has said so. The players are Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Segura, Perry, von Cramm, Riggs and Tilden last.

Kramer picks Budge number one and Vines number two with Perry third. But Kramer also added that with Vines hurting (so Kramer says) and very interested in golf that he wasn't sure what would happen if Vines was totally into the tour when he played Don Budge.

I'll get more lists later but I have to leave now. Do all these experts think Vines was a product of marketing? These experts know.

I never saw Kodes play, but I've heard about him, read about him, and seen some old video with him playing. Even with some depleted fields during the early 1970's at times, there were a lot of extremely good players in the top 20. As for Vines, he sounds like he was just a wonderful player, very gifted, and someone with an outstanding record.

While I respect Kiki what disturbs me about the comparison is the one sidedness of the comparison. To compare Ellsworth Vines with Jan Kodes is like comparing Michael Jordan to Kiki Vandeweghe in NBA basketball. Jordan's an all time great while Kiki was a very good player.

In this way Vines is an all time great while Kodes is a better than average player. I can probably mentioned more than ten better clay court players than Kodes and probably more than thirty overall players better than Kodes.

With Vines some would argue none are ahead of him and many would argue just a few. Vines is consistently on top ten all time greats list in tennis. I have never seen Kodes on a top ten all time list in anything.

I would not be bothered with Kodes was compared to Michael Chang or JIm Courier but Vines, no way there is any sort of reasonably comparison.

Click to expand...

chang is a reasonable comparision .... But IMO courier is by some distance better than kodes....it isn't that close at all ...

Courier is way better than Kodes. All his slams were fully legit with all the big names entered, and at the time of a reasonably strong field. He also had numerous other slams he was denied by Pete Sampras or Bruguera at the French Open. He was in the intimidating and feared #1 in 1992 and early 1993. If they played in their mutual primes Courier would probably hit Kodes off court from the baseline, and even outgrind and outwill him, especialy on a mutual surface like hard courts.

I would rate Kodes above Chang as he does still have 3 slams (well technically) and he did go through stellar draws to make those 2 U.S Open finals.

While I think Vines's ranking here is a bit harsh it should also dismiss any idea he is a possible GOAT. No possible GOAT would be ranked so low by a panel of experts.

Click to expand...

Why? That same list had Roy Emerson well above Pancho Gonzales. They obviously used the wrong criteria, putting a lot of weight on Emerson's 12 amateur majors while obviously ignoring the amazing achievements of Gonzales in the professional ranks. I have Ellsworth Vines as the best player of the 1930s, better than Budge, Nusslein, Perry, Cochet and Crawford. Vines won 5 professional majors, and only entered 8 of them in total (2 of those he didn't win were in 1939), and beat all his rivals on the pro tours until Budge dethroned him.

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

You have Vines for the 30s but 99% of people have Budge. Your views on many issues are off the rocker a bit. You after all have stated King, Serena, Seles, Connolly, Agassi, Lendl, Perry, are various others who have not a single thing about their record which is the best ever as GOAT candidates.

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

You have Vines for the 30s but 99% of people have Budge. Your views on many issues are off the rocker a bit. You after all have stated King, Serena, Seles, Connolly, Agassi, Lendl, Perry, are various others who have not a single thing about their record which is the best ever as GOAT candidates.

Click to expand...

People have Budge because of the CYGS in 1938. Budge didn't start to achieve a lot until 1937. Vines was acheving world class stuff for most of the 1930s decade.

I did not say the ranking were perfect. They are badly flawed in some cases. I would probably rank Vines somewhere in the 30s instead (in a male only list in the top 20 probably), which is much higher than they have him. However even as flawed as they are there is no way a group of experts would ever rank a possible GOAT in the 60s all time. The fact any group of experts would rank the possible GOAT that low, period. Bud Collins also refered to Vines as a one dimensional player, something I dont think you would hear from such a famed voice on the possible GOAT.

Click to expand...

It's a terribly flawed list and I don't think it shows much. But it shows one thing conclusively, that Kiki is wrong about Vines being a product of great marketing. If he was that, then he was one of the poorest products of marketing ever, if he could end up at #64 on Tennis Channel's list.

Kramer and Budge both rated Vines near the top; they both regarded him as a GOAT contender. They probably did so because level of play was a higher criteria for them, compared to where it might be for us. On this board we generally start with players' records, "placing" them according to their titles; and then we talk about their level of play, the level of play of their opponents, etc., and argue about whether they should be moved up or down on our lists. For Kramer and Budge and perhaps a lot of other people, it may have gone the other way around: they may have started first with level of play, and then considered actual titles.

That might not seem right to us, but back then they knew that a player's actual accomplishments could get upended by politics within the sport (such as the pro/am split, or even the politics within the pro tours), or by a war. In that context, looking first at level of play might seem the fairest way to level the playing field.

Bud does say that Vines was something of a one-dimensional player. That's true to some extent. If you could blunt his power, you could get him; that seems to be how Bitsy Grant beat him twice in the amateur game. But Vines matured as a player later. He never became a touch player or anything like that; but I wonder how one-dimensional he could have been if he had a winning record over every single major rival that he met in the mid-30s, until he met Budge.

Graf didnt achieve much in the 80s until 1987 but people still rate her over Evert in the 80s, despite that Evert was a force the whole decade. Court only played 2-3 years in the 70s and some still rate her over Evert in the 70s despite that Evert was a force the whole decade, and the dominant player for over half of it. Playing the whole decade doesnt make you better than someone who didnt, especialy if they managed to achieve more in 2-3 years than you did over the whole decade combined. Budge the same number of combined amateur and pro slams (8) despite that he wasnt even a mature player, or even playing yet, for alot of the decade vs Vines who was. That in addition to the Grand Slam. I already mentioned as well that Vines was usually on top either as an amateur or pro facing greats much older than him like Tilden and the French players, so he was at a major advantage, until people his own age emerged and overtook him- Crawford as an amateur, and Budge immediately once he turned pro. He did not fare as well when faced with legends his own age, as ones much older than he was.

That in addition to the Grand Slam. I already mentioned as well that Vines was usually on top either as an amateur or pro facing greats much older than him like Tilden and the French players, so he was at a major advantage, until people his own age emerged and overtook him- Crawford as an amateur, and Budge immediately once he turned pro. He did not fare as well when faced with legends his own age, as ones much older than he was.

Click to expand...

Who overtook Vines? Crawford in the amateurs in 1933, and Budge in the pros in 1939. The rest of the decade, Vines was beating all his rivals.

And if you want to talk about the level of competition, what about the level of competition in the 1938 amateur ranks when Budge won the CYGS? Crawford was within 1 set of winning the CYGS in 1933, in a field that contained Vines and Perry. Not the best route for you to go down, if you ask me.